It might be common, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to wail against it - especially since I was not familiar with this particular case. As it turns out, several of Adobe products' download pages have opt-out checkboxes to also install Google Chrome. This was spyware-like behaviour when Apple did it with Safari and the iPhone Configuration Utility, and it is still spyware-like behaviour when Adobe and Google do it with Chrome.

I have always wondered why Google changed their opinion on Flash overnight a year or two ago, why they started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome, with Chrome OS, why they reviewed their HTML5 plans for YouTube and the Internet in general, why they suddenly started saying that they still need Flash because there are things that HTML5 cannot offer... Now I understand. ...

So can you share your understanding with us? I still don't get it. I suspect there were some technical reasons, but have no clue. Another guess is that flash is ubiquitous and works across different browsers and platforms. Adobe declared VP8 support, so I thought Google might need Adobe to deliver their royalty-free video codec to as many desktops as possible via flash. But that's just a guess. So what's your understanding of the Adobe-Google relationship? You didn't elaborate on that part...

Google and Adobe signed a deal last year. Google agreed to help Adobe bring Flash to Android, among other things (http://www.osnews.com/story/23193/Google_Adobe_Partner_on_Bringing_...). They also started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome etc., said YouTube would still use Flash, even though there were speculations they wanted to get rid of Flash before.

Now, this was all good for Adobe. The Flash-free iPhone was a big threat to them, just like the Flash-free Metro IE in W8 is. If Google products were Flash-free, too, it could have been a nail in Flash's coffin. Adobe needed to do something to stop its decline.

But why did Google sign the agreement? Well, at least now we see something in it for Google, too: Google helps Adobe spread Flash, Adobe helps Google spread Chrome.

Google and Adobe signed a deal last year. Google agreed to help Adobe bring Flash to Android, among other things (http://www.osnews.com/story/23193/Google_Adobe_Partner_on_Bringing_...). They also started bundling the Flash Player with Chrome etc., said YouTube would still use Flash, even though there were speculations they wanted to get rid of Flash before.

Now, this was all good for Adobe. The Flash-free iPhone was a big threat to them, just like the Flash-free Metro IE in W8 is. If Google products were Flash-free, too, it could have been a nail in Flash's coffin. Adobe needed to do something to stop its decline.

But why did Google sign the agreement? Well, at least now we see something in it for Google, too: Google helps Adobe spread Flash, Adobe helps Google spread Chrome.

Thanks. Now just dunno why you scream liaaar at Google for that - seems to be a fair deal.

Word on the street from random Adobe employees is that Google pays for every Chrome download that comes through the Adobe site. I don't think this has anything to do with the Chrome or Android deals going on (which rummer has Google also essentially funds entirely).

I'm not sure how you could really claim that Flash on Android only helps Adobe though. A lot of Android phones are attempting to sell themselves entirely on the fact they support Flash.

I also find it really funny that people want to claim this is ok because its standard industry practice right now, or because there's a freaking checkbox? I know Google's motto is "don't be evil" and not "be good", but I don't think that somehow means they're free from taking criticism when they aren't doing the good thing.